On November 08 2012 07:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: The reason the food labeling proposition was a bad idea is because the ONLY people it would possibly benefit would be the lawyers who would have a field day suing every company who made a food product and didn't label it according to some incredibly vague and poorly understood criteria. You'd have an item that contains .1% corn forced to put some stupid label which would only scare ignorant consumers into thinking "the government wouldn't force them to label it unless it was bad."
Just all around a terrible law.
No, the public would benefit. I don't see how you do not see this. Maybe you don't care, but there are people out there who are incredibly passionate about the subject. If someone is scared off by a simple label then it is not the fault of the label, it is the fault of the company for not knowing how to properly educate the public, or it's the fault of how the company runs their business.
But then again, we've been through all of this with cigarettes already. Big tobacco knew well before everyone else just how dangerous cigarettes were yet we closed our eyes until people started dropping like flies and opened themselves up to even bigger lawsuits. I would prefer people know beforehand so they can make informed decisions.
as much as I don't mind implementing something like that I don't really see why the opposite isn't just working? If there's people who want to buy food like that make a "this is no GM-food"-label. Works with all this bio-food as well, doesn't it? There's people who are willing to pay more for that kind of food and there's companies (apparently?) making a profit out of those kind of things.
The labeling law was poorly written. I personally voted against it.
To avoid confusion, here is the summary of the law:
- Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. - Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” - Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.
It's just a bad law because if you're going to harp on "natural", farming is by definition an unnatural activity and there's no proof that GMO foods are at all harmful. And it's always a bad sign when the list of exemptions is longer than the law itself.
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.
The New York Times may not be perfect but sometimes it's just pleasurable to read.
On November 08 2012 07:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: The reason the food labeling proposition was a bad idea is because the ONLY people it would possibly benefit would be the lawyers who would have a field day suing every company who made a food product and didn't label it according to some incredibly vague and poorly understood criteria. You'd have an item that contains .1% corn forced to put some stupid label which would only scare ignorant consumers into thinking "the government wouldn't force them to label it unless it was bad."
Just all around a terrible law.
No, the public would benefit. I don't see how you do not see this. Maybe you don't care, but there are people out there who are incredibly passionate about the subject. If someone is scared off by a simple label then it is not the fault of the label, it is the fault of the company for not knowing how to properly educate the public, or it's the fault of how the company runs their business.
But then again, we've been through all of this with cigarettes already. Big tobacco knew well before everyone else just how dangerous cigarettes were yet we closed our eyes until people started dropping like flies and opened themselves up to even bigger lawsuits. I would prefer people know beforehand so they can make informed decisions.
stuff like this will distract from actually important issues.
also, those who are scared by GM foods present a market fact that can resolve itself. there are organic foods available. if they are sizable enough of a group the labels will appear by themselves.
There are less important things than the public educating themselves on what they eat. The most food conscious nation in the world, Japan, has the highest average life-span for a reason.
I don't see how your second point is relevant. Organics are organics, they have entire chains dedicated to just organic food. However, GMs can be found in pretty much every grocery store - once again, the public has the right to be informed of what goes into their bodies. Period.
the labeling of 'organic food' is so tenuous it's just a marketing scheme.
as gm food is more of a 'fair trade' kind of label, it's more like an education of the public about the political and ecological issues surrounding GM food. the food itself is fine.
I think the argument that GMO food should have labels because it could possibly have health issues associated (no substantial evidence) is lacks rationality right now...
However, as it becomes a bigger and bigger trade issue for farms, I think all products that don't use GMO should have a label saying that, put there by mfg's voluntarily just out of competitive advantage, because anyone with knowledge of the issue will automatically gravitate towards it out of compassion, and spite of the big greedy corporations. Just like products that say Free Range or Fair Trade right now. It's not a law, it's just good business sense.
The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, striking a conciliatory tone a day after the Republican Party’s electoral drubbing, said on Wednesday that he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates.
The New York Times may not be perfect but sometimes it's just pleasurable to read.
The NYT is my 10/10, she has such a way with words.
On November 08 2012 07:57 oneofthem wrote: the labeling of 'organic food' is so tenuous it's just a marketing scheme.
as gm food is more of a 'fair trade' kind of label, it's more like an education of the public about the political and ecological issues surrounding GM food. the food itself is fine.
Whether the food is fine or not is irrelevant. People have a right to know. Period. This is people's food we're talking about, not a damn baseball cap or something.
On November 08 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote: HEY EVERYONE!
I'm too happy for words. Obama gets re-elected (with the electoral vote and the popular vote), the Senate stays in Democratic hands, Elizabeth Warren gets elected, Mourdock, Walsh, Akin and quite a few others lose, hopefully Allen West loses, and marriage equality is adopted in Maryland and Maine, looks on the verge of being adopted in Washington, and is not banned in Minnesota. Too bad Bachmann got elected, but she might contribute to maintaining the tensions inside the Republican party with her extreme views, so it might be a blessing in disguise for Democrats.
Yesterday night was amazing. I was watching with a few friends on CNN, had a Fox News stream on the computer, and I was simultaneously checking various websites to get the info as soon as possible. I was also refreshing this thread punctually, but since I was on someone else's laptop and I had forgotten my password, I was unable to post. The faces of Fox News commentators, and the subsequent tears of Karl Rove over the Ohio call, felt amazingly sweet. I literally jumped to my feet when the President won, and have had a grin on my face ever since.
I know this post is going to get lost in these last pages, but I would like to thank a few posters for contributing to this thread. It's been very enjoyable to discuss this campaign here - I'll probably stick around, but so far I've read every single page of the thread (and of the previous Republican nominations thread) and it's been one hell of a ride :p Thanks to paralleluniverse (your posts on the economy are always a pleasure to read), Defacer, farvacola, aksfjh, DoubleReed, Stratos_speAr, Derez, Leporello, koreasilver, mcc and Souma, among others (my brain is still a bit fuzzy from the partying last night, so I can't remember everyone!), for their contributions to the thread. Thanks to the mods (in particular Stealthblue, Failing and Kwark) for doing a good job keeping all of this civil. I'll be honest, I sometimes wanted to bang my head against the wall at what I was reading from some conservative posters, but we would not have had this level of discussion and I would not have been able to read some of the replies of the posters listed above had there been no conservative posters participating.
Cheers!
Yes, this was quite an amazing outcome. Also, a big congrats to Elizabeth Warren as well, she's one of the most passionate champion's of the middle class that I've seen.
This thread has been a lot of fun. And could have been more interesting or infuriating, depending on your point of view, had there been more conservative posters who didn't get banned.
For now, onwards towards the fiscal cliff...hopefully not...
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!?
It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested.
The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs.
that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of.
That is correct as such, but often contamination is not insignificant and when cancer is a possible sideeffect of bad genes. and that effect often is associated with low quantities of a compound, it is not as farfetched as it sounds.
On November 08 2012 08:02 oneofthem wrote: do they have the right to know if the food has been trampled over by a black cat at any point in time?
Now you're just being snippy (but if it was a finished product I would hope people would remove it as someone could be allergic to cats).
We're talking about the composition of the food, not the specifics of the processes in which it was made (I don't think people should have to label whether or not their pork was smashed into concrete ground while it was still alive).
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!?
It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested.
The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs.
that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of.
That is correct as such, but often contamination is not insignificant and when cancer is a possible sideeffect of bad genes. and that effect often is associated with low quantities of a compound, it is not as farfetched as it sounds.
well, okay. that is an argument i will admit is technically sound. but monoculture is a feature of agribusiness, and regulating species diversity may be an alternative to consider.
On November 08 2012 08:02 oneofthem wrote: do they have the right to know if the food has been trampled over by a black cat at any point in time?
Now you're just being snippy (but if it was a finished product I would hope people would remove it as someone could be allergic to cats).
We're talking about the composition of the food, not the specifics of the processes in which it was made (I don't think people should have to label whether or not their pork was smashed into concrete ground while it was still alive).
GMO is the organism that was modified. the food itself is not modified in situations where it contains no genetic material, and infinitesimally modified when it's a seed or something.
the food is molecularly equivalent except for a few genetic changes. the monoculture point made above is relevant to increase the level of impact of an incredibly unlikely event of the couple molecules becoming a problem, but you are eating the thing and digesting it so it is incredibly unlikely that it will present a problem.
Man we're almost certainly going to have a recount here in Florida and nobody fucking cares. Poor guys doing the recount lol. hey at least we can't fuck up the election
- Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. - Prohibits labeling or advertising such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” - Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.
It's just a bad law because if you're going to harp on "natural", farming is by definition an unnatural activity and there's no proof that GMO foods are at all harmful. And it's always a bad sign when the list of exemptions is longer than the law itself.
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!?
It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested.
The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs.
that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of.
That is correct as such, but often contamination is not insignificant and when cancer is a possible sideeffect of bad genes. and that effect often is associated with low quantities of a compound, it is not as farfetched as it sounds.
well, okay. that is an argument i will admit is technically sound. but monoculture is a feature of agribusiness, and regulating species diversity may be an alternative to consider.
On November 08 2012 08:02 oneofthem wrote: do they have the right to know if the food has been trampled over by a black cat at any point in time?
Now you're just being snippy (but if it was a finished product I would hope people would remove it as someone could be allergic to cats).
We're talking about the composition of the food, not the specifics of the processes in which it was made (I don't think people should have to label whether or not their pork was smashed into concrete ground while it was still alive).
GMO is the organism that was modified. the food itself is not modified in situations where it contains no genetic material, and infinitesimally modified when it's a seed or something.
the food is molecularly equivalent except for a few genetic changes. the monoculture point made above is relevant to increase the level of impact of an incredibly unlikely event of the couple molecules becoming a problem, but you are eating the thing and digesting it so it is incredibly unlikely that it will present a problem.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me... So the food is composed of something that was genetically-modified, correct?
On November 08 2012 06:48 Souma wrote: Crap, Prop 37 didn't pass in California.
sigh, I guess there are worse things than not having labels for genetically-modified foods.
... or are there!?
It shouldn't have passed. The entire movement against GMOs has 0 scientific backing. For how much we democrats give crap to Republicans for being anti-science, our obsession with GMOs is really embarrassing.
So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth...
if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it?
GMO has some problematic carryover of abilities. It is estimated that it takes less than 20 years from a GMO-crop is first planted on a field untill the specific gene from the crop has spread to every other plant in the area. The basic problem of this transfer of ability is that the specific effect of the gene can vary based on the rest of the genetic sequence in the organism and to be sure, you would therefore need to test the immunised weed to see how animals react to them too and so on and so forth (let alone the ecologicaleffects of the specific gene - if it is immunity to a specific herbicide, the longterm effect is rather serious for the manufacturer of the herbicide.). Reality is that the specifics of tranferring genes between species is still poorly understood and the effects of the transfer of a previously unreleased gene and its effect on nature is virtually untested.
The Monsanto overreaches are just an example of a clever businessman gaming the patent system. Nothing more, nothing less and it has very little to do with GMOs.
that first paragraph is an argument for oversight on planting of gm crop. that is all well and excellent. the food itself has no issues that anyone is aware of.
That is correct as such, but often contamination is not insignificant and when cancer is a possible sideeffect of bad genes. and that effect often is associated with low quantities of a compound, it is not as farfetched as it sounds.
well, okay. that is an argument i will admit is technically sound. but monoculture is a feature of agribusiness, and regulating species diversity may be an alternative to consider.
On November 08 2012 08:05 Souma wrote:
On November 08 2012 08:02 oneofthem wrote: do they have the right to know if the food has been trampled over by a black cat at any point in time?
Now you're just being snippy (but if it was a finished product I would hope people would remove it as someone could be allergic to cats).
We're talking about the composition of the food, not the specifics of the processes in which it was made (I don't think people should have to label whether or not their pork was smashed into concrete ground while it was still alive).
GMO is the organism that was modified. the food itself is not modified in situations where it contains no genetic material, and infinitesimally modified when it's a seed or something.
the food is molecularly equivalent except for a few genetic changes. the monoculture point made above is relevant to increase the level of impact of an incredibly unlikely event of the couple molecules becoming a problem, but you are eating the thing and digesting it so it is incredibly unlikely that it will present a problem.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me... So the food is composed of something that was genetically-modified, correct?
typically only food containing genetic material would be physically different from stuff that's "natural" and the difference itself can be called "genetically modified." but no, "composed" is wrong. if you have a GM cow, the milk would not be composed of the cow. it would be milk, but maybe with a different nutritional composition, allergens etc.
edit: take the cow example from the ted video posted above. the increased dose of antibiotics in milk cows may be a result of genetically modified cows having weaker immune systems (or a general pressure to pack more cows in tighter spaces and time), but that antibiotics is itself not genetically modified.
i'm all for tighter studies of food and the delivery process. GM though is too sensationalized to be a useful label.
EPT
